Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grass Fight

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 July 2008 [1].

---

Grass Fight

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)

This article documents a small battle during the Texas Revolution. I'm intending it to be the first in a potential featured topic on the Siege of Bexar. Although I would have liked to include a map of the area in which the battle took place, none of the books that discussed the battle included maps or diagrams, and the creeks used as landmarks are fairly small and may have changed course since 1835, so I did not create my own. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Short but sweet. Well-written and referenced throughout, definitely meets the criteria in my eyes. Well done, Karanacs. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. No links to check. I did fix a small typo I saw. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Short, but so was the battle.

• The first sentence of the "Background" section is worded strangely. The "in 1834" seems to be misplaced, perhaps?
• What region is being referred to in the sentence beginning "On October 11…"? If you mean the future state of Texas that's accurate, but it almost reads as if the Gonzales area was meant. Gonzales was in the Green DeWitt colony while Austin's colony was quite a ways away, in 1835 terms, at least.
• On my screen setup, the James Bowie image ends where the "See also" section begins, creating an indented head but with the text below at the left margin. Swapping sides for the two images would solve the issue.
  • The swapping of images has solved this one but created the same issue for the "Aftermath" section. Since that section is longer than the two lines of the "See also" section, it's not much of a concern to me, at least. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• The sentence about the deserter being seen in Gonzales doesn't seem particularly relevant.
• The "References" section contains a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite book}} which results in (ever so slight) formatting differences for some of the books. Also, the Hardin book (which is manually formatted) does not list the place of publication
• I fixed one typo, and added a relevant external link.

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the ambiguous "region"; I've switched that to "in Texas" and fixed the other prose issues you have pointed out. I don't want to swap the images, as MOS says the images should look towards the text. I'll see if I can expand the section by a sentence or two so that the See Also is pushed down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We need a qualifier on colonists for Stephen F. Austin to distinguish his colonists from, say, the Canary Islanders. I'm thinking something along the lines of American or Anglo but neither seems exactly right to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "first English-speaking colonists". Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• A minor question: can we get {{Infobox Military Conflict}} put in? Kirill ^(prof) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought about that and decided not to put it in. The article is so short that is seems overkill to have an infobox too. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, all other articles in the "Texas Revolution" box have an infobox. I think it is helpful for readers to get the quickest possible overview about a battle. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I hadn't realized that alll of the other articles in the Texas Revolution campaignbox had infoboxes. I've added one. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I'm not that knowledgeable in Texas history. Most folks would say this is a good thing. However, I have some questions.
• Can you state in the first sentence that it was a battle/skirmish/dustup/froofraw? Was it part of a bigger war or revolution? That's not clear in the lead.
• So... 20 people died for grass... what happened to the grass? Does any historian say? And for God's sake, if not, why?? Seriously - I'm wondering this.
• How is this event seen in history? A proud moment in the lives of all Texans, or a chuckle-fest and metaphor for misplaced enthusiasm or a consequence of not having well-disciplined and engaged troops? A 19th century Grenada?
• If this was part of a larger war or revolution, did it lead to anything other than a surge of faith in the abilities of Texians?
• Small articles sometimes create the most puzzlement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Moni, I was afraid that some of this might leave non-Texas a bit lost. Since your list is so short, I'll respond below you, and you can put your comments wherever.
  • I've reworded the first part of the lead to hopefully be a bit more clear.
  • Amazingly enough, no historian has remarked on what happened to the grass. I would assume the Texian horses ate it.
  • Most of the books that I read didn't do much analysis of the battle (a side effect of being a pretty small fight...over grass). I had already included Edmondson's view that it was "a ludicrous affair". Should I make that more prominent (put it in the lead, perhaps)? If you think it would help, I could also include more information on how much of a joke the Texian army really was (seriously, it is a miracle Texas is not still part of Mexico).
  • I clarified that the Texians agreed to attack Bexar on Dec 5 partly as a result of their Grass Fight victory.

Does this help? Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is much clearer now, thanks. Consider it my condemnation of all Texas historians who have not addressed what happened to the grass. If people must die in battle, it should be known what good their deaths did in the grand scheme of human history. It's a silly idea, yet... what a horrifying thought that you had to lay down your life for bushels of grass that no one cared about. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Support. I can write long easily; I'm glad to see someone writing short! But regarding parts of the lead:
  • Is there a wikilink for the "Mexican Army" of the time, that could be used in the first sentence?
  • In the first paragraph we have the "members of a volunteer militia", the "volunteer Texian army", and the "smaller number of adventurers from the United States". Are these all one and the same? In that case "militia" and "army" need to be reconciled. Or are only the first and the third the same?
  • The "pack" wikilink goes to animals, not trains.
  • Saying "historian Alwyn Barr states that ..." in the lead sounds like a lame. Don't we know enough to say something like, historians believe blah blah, although side X claimed much larger numbers at the time.

Will come up with comments on rest of article later. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a short article. I've rewritten the first paragraph of the lead to try for a bit more clarity. I also created an article on the Texian Army today that I've now wikilinked too (maybe that will help). I've switched the link from pack animal to packhorse - this article does explain that packhorses were often used in "trains" of several animals. As for the number of Mexican dead, every source I've found lists a different number and some just don't list a number. Barr is the only historian to write a book focused on the Siege of Bexar and go into detail on this battle, so I chose to highlight his number, hoping it would be the most accurate. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated, too much childhood experience with pack trains, I guess, but a pack train usually includes horses, mules and burros. Wish we could fix that, although it's not your problem, but worried that non-English-speaking readers will have no idea what the heck it is. Can't we make pack animal discuss pack trains? It's not only horses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job creating the Texian Army article ... however, the use of "Mexican Army" and "Texian Army" does not stay consistent in this article ... in "Background" there's a "Texian army" with only Texian wlinked, and later there are a lot of "Mexican army" and "Texian army" mentions with mixed case. I don't know what the MILHIST conventions are with respect to this, but looking at a few FA articles, Something Army and Something Navy usually stay capitalized throughout. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Another comment, on the "Background" section. This is covering the origins of the Texas Revolution and the beginnings of the conflict. Compared to other FA "Battle of ..." articles, this seems too much. Generally these articles just start with some background on a particular campaign, or stage of the conflict, and that leads into the description of the particular battle. In this case, you might just start with the Siege of Bexar. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the case issues; thanks for pointing out that oversight. As for the background, I included the first few sentences on why the revolution started primarily because I thought there would be very few readers who knew about it, and since the article was really short it wouldn't hurt to start there. I'd be willing to remove most of the first 3 sentences in the first paragraph, but I think the section does need to start with the Texas Revolution beginning. The way the Texian Army formed really did have an impact on this battle (random gathering of settlers who were highly disorganized and didn't know how to be soldiers). I also think the reasons they were in the Bexar area are important. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Removing the first three sentences makes sense.

    Also, I'd argue that the last sentence of "Aftermath" doesn't belong either. You'd have to explain or wikilink what "parole" is (I know, but many readers won't, since it doesn't happen much any more), and in any case, it seems pretty remote from the Grass Fight.

    Also, a minor change: in "Although the battle, which historian J.R. Edmondson termed a "ludicrous affair", ...", I'd replace "battle" with "engagement" or somesuch, to avoid a repetition of a few words earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for your continued comments. I've removed the first 3 sentences of the Background section adnd made the word change you mentioned. I'm going to keep the last sentence of aftermath as it is somewhat related (win in grass fight convinced troops they could attack Mexican Army, which resulted in Mex. Army surrender and leaving the province), but I have wikilinked parole for more clarity. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, support now indicated above. Nice job on the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Karanacs directly above)

• "many of the men became sick, and groups of men began to leave, most without permission." - there weren't any female soldiers were there? It may sound awkward without "the men" but I dunno if you need to say it both times. *shrugs*
• "scattering the mules" - other than in the lead, this is the first time mules are mentioned... maybe it's just me but until now I had no idea mules were involved.
• "Four Texians were wounded in the fighting. One soldier deserted during the battle." - merge these sentences?

Overall a good, short, sweet read. —Giggy 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reworded to "many soldiers became sick, and groups of men began to leave"; specified in first paragraph of Battle section that it was a "pack train of horses and mules" (I thought this was a common term but I guess I'm the only one who reads Westerns ;)), and combined the sentences you mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. It probably is a common term; I'm just Australian. :-) —Giggy 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.